Have you used software without paying?

[Mr LuLu]

It's not a loaded question.
I'm sure there are those that have and those that haven't. You dont have to tell us what or how. I'm more interested in the why...
I have, it's not something I'm either proud of or ashamed of. If I like a program I'll buy it (mainly 3rd party apps) but I do have full demo's that I've found serial keys for :rolleyes:

What about you guys n' gals?

[Plymouthbreezer]

Troll? :eek:

[yellow]

Warez and illegal use of software (or discussions thereof) is frowned upon here, so I don't suspect you'll get much in the way of answers.

[UberMac]

It's not a loaded question.
I'm sure there are those that have and those that haven't. You dont have to tell us what or how. I'm more interested in the why...
I have, it's not something I'm either proud of or ashamed of. If I like a program I'll buy it (mainly 3rd party apps) but I do have full demo's that I've found serial keys for :rolleyes:

What about you guys n' gals?

Errr...*BLANK*...that'll do for now. See where the topic goes before I discuss much more.

[feakbeak]

Do you have a legitimate purpose asking this question?

I've cracked software to try it out when the demo's are too watered down to get a good feel for the product. If I like the product and believe I will use it enough - I purchase it. I've obtained games illegally at LAN parties and I'll play them at home afterwards to give them a try... but if I like them, I buy them. However, I'm not overly rigid about software piracy as some are on this board.

I'm not sure if my actions are ethical, but it makes sense to me. I want to support companies that make good apps and software and I don't want to waste money on products that are no good. Most apps/games these days are pretty good with demos though.

I'm not sure if what I do is considered piracy or not - I know the MR board rules forbid the discussion of software piracy though. Hope I'm not breaking it! :o

[~Shard~]

Have I used software without paying? Of course, all the time - it's called freeware and shareware. Freeware I use and don't pay for, and shareware I can trial and therefore use without paying for it for a limited time.

sourceforge and versiontracker are our friends! :cool:

[FoxyKaye]

<Admiral Ackbar>It's a Trap!!!</Admiral Ackbar>

[Mr LuLu]

Hi, it was aimed as a related but OT discussion and not meant to offend so if it has I apologise.
Troll? Do you mean am i posting under an alias? No, Mr LuLu is my handle on most boards.
I wasn't asking for specifics "get adobe here" and I'm aware that it's frowned upon but I'd imagine that means specific apps or sites - something I was trying to avoid.

Feakbeak, thanks for your input. This is what I was looking for (a discussion) :D

[WinterMute]

Hi, it was aimed as a related but OT discussion and not meant to offend so if it has I apologise.
Troll? Do you mean am i posting under an alias? No, Mr LuLu is my handle on most boards.
I wasn't asking for specifics "get adobe here" and I'm aware that it's frowned upon but I'd imagine that means specific apps or sites - something I was trying to avoid.

Feakbeak, thanks for your input. This is what I was looking for (a discussion) :D

By troll he meant you were posting to get a flame war going or a reaction from members or mods.

Yellow is right in saying discussion of getting or installing illegal software is very much frowned upon here, but an intelligent discussion of the reasons this may happen, while open to being dragged off-topic very easily is allowed.

We're not puritanical hardliners, but many of us (myself included) lose money to piracy on a regular basis.

Keep it clean here folks.

[Mr. Durden]

I tried out some software once and really liked it. So I decided to keep it. But every time I used it, I got this nagging feeling that I was stealing (which I was, I guess). So I decided that if I liked it that much I should buy it. So I did, and cleared my conscience right up.

[Mr LuLu]

Thanks :)
Honestly not trying to piss in anyones pond.

How does piracy affect you and what steps can you take to protect your business?

Would i know any of your apps?

[feakbeak]

I'm a software developer for a company that sells several commerical products. Our products are geared towards developers and IT professionals, so it's not average consumer stuff that most would know about. We use a serial number scheme and some other tricks are used in our evaluation versions. The serial number stuff is baked into the product, so you can't use it without a valid license.

It is frustrating - we just re-wrote our serial number scheme to make it more complex a little over a year ago and within about a month of being released it had already been cracked. Someone even wrote a serial number generator for our products - they didn't get all the details right, but close enough to cause us some major headaches.

Having other businesses as our major market is helpful though as businesses are much better about manging software licenses than users. I don't think piracy is a huge problem within companies since they get audited far more often. Home consumers, on the other hand, are much more likely to steal software.

[WinterMute]

Thanks :)
Honestly not trying to piss in anyones pond.

How does piracy affect you and what steps can you take to protect your business?

Would i know any of your apps?

No, I was a commercial recording engineer/producer for many years, royalty payments on back catalog recordings have taken a real hit in the last 3 years due to P2P and other music piracy.

There isn't anything I can do to protect the revenue, it's gone. The whole industry needs to wake up and realise it can't protect physical CD's and that the download is the way forward, if you make buying music as easy as iTMS then you'll make money.

[dotdotdot]

I have some illegally cracked apps on my computer but these are why:

1) I need to try it out and get a good feel for it. I only have like cracked imaging and music converting apps. Why can I only convert a song for 40 seconds and buy it when I can for free get a serial and convert the whole thing and if it works, I'll buy it. Usually it doesn't work or sounds crappy anyway.

2) I don't have a credit card, and cant buy stuff whenever I want. Therefore, I need to like it and my dad needs to like it before I can buy it.

3) I have cracked stuff to try it out, and paid for it after. The most recent case was QuickTime 6.5. I wanted to know if the pro features were worth it. I upgraded to QuickTime 7 and decided that they are so worth it that I can't use QuickTime without it. I'm waiting to buy it.

4) In some cases, (I use Windows) the company puts nasty spyware in the free version/trial version and the pay for version removes this.

Everything esle I own. I don't like piracy but I don't like restrictions on demos or companies putting spyware on my computer.

[Abstract]

I, like pretty much every Uni student I have ever run across, has illegal software on their computer. At one point, I didn't know anyone with a legal copy of Windows XP. Of course, that all changed when they went out and bought new computers, and XP came with the system. ;)

[rockthecasbah]

yes i have. iTunes, Mozilla Firefox, Adaware SE, all the media players, Burn 4 Free, and AVG Free are all on my desktop. Plus all those free trial things like winzip that ask you to buy but you can keep using it freely. Woot. Some shadier stuff has been used too ;)

[~Shard~]

It's funny - I feel more inclined to pay for software on my Mac than on my Windows box. :cool:

[faintember]

It's funny - I feel more inclined to pay for software on my Mac than on my Windows box. :cool:

That is so true in my case. When i was using windows almost all of my software was <cough>borrowed</cough>. I figured why buy a program that i rarely use, especally if it dosent work well.

When i switched I found myself having much more success with various programs, and now everything on my Mac's are bought and paid for. That said, there was a leap in maturity on my part. It is amazing what the difference of a few years can do to your view of right and wrong.

[Mr LuLu]

It's funny - I feel more inclined to pay for software on my Mac than on my Windows box. :cool:

I'm the same. I didn't pay for a damn thing on Windows that I didn't regret buying. It's their own fault for having a poor OS and more bugs than a travelling flea circus! :)

I am more inclined to pay for my Mac apps because it feels like there's just been a greater effort and more attention put into them.

[crachoar]

No, I was a commercial recording engineer/producer for many years, royalty payments on back catalog recordings have taken a real hit in the last 3 years due to P2P and other music piracy.

There isn't anything I can do to protect the revenue, it's gone. The whole industry needs to wake up and realise it can't protect physical CD's and that the download is the way forward, if you make buying music as easy as iTMS then you'll make money.

Ah jeez, you just had to bring up the RIAA propaganda...

Rant on the Music Industry:

First of all: Haha. [/nelson]

Secondly: It's not just because of piracy - although, I'm sure you'd love to make us all feel guilty for ripping or downloading those Beatles albums from our dad's collections. Afterall, Michael Jackson needs royalties.

It's mostly the price that keeps people from buying CDs.

The music industry claims they're going 'broke' from the 'P2P / Pirate fiasco' - but then, you have to wonder, how guys like '50 Cent' walk away with multi-million-dollar record contracts, and how record companies can still afford to pay 'big stars' like that.

They charge between $10 - $20 per cd. Millions of idiots are buying this trash. So, I'll lean in your favor and go with the rare $10 price tag. Ok, time for the scenario:

The CD costs around $2 to press, package and ship (in bulk) - and I'm probably charging you too much in this case. The recording artist signs on for 'x' amount of (manufactured) albums per year based on a 'one-time-payment' deal of 'whatever-million-dollars' plus the costs of living / transportation. He sells his name and image to the company so that they can make money off of it - any way they can. The record company hypes them up on MTV for a week with some cheap TRL plugs and releases the 'hot new single from _____'. The single comes out with three tracks. The original and two remixes - sells for $5-$7. So, a few million idiots pay money for this trash (that covers the cost of PR and printing congrats - you've passed the 'breaking even' mark), the ablum comes out, goes double-platinum, wins 82 Grammys (congrats, sales increase, yet again), is given 'Four Stars' by Jesus Christ himself, the idiots eat it up, and everybody involved in the time-proven scam of pop music walks away with a few extra million in the bank. Oh, and don't forget the profits from the tour and merchandising. Hell, they make more money from selling action figures and t-shirts than they do the albums.

And royalties! How could we forget! You can count on this years top 'White Guy Meets Black Guy' movie using your new hit pop songs in their trailers. Money in the bank!

Your theory of royalties is flawed - because I know for a fact that pop stars like Brittany Spears are most popular amongst the 'P2P terrorist networks'. However, they still sell millions of albums, and everybody involved still walks away rich.

If what the RIAA claims is true - then Brittany Spears would be living in a box, under an interstate bridge - turning tricks for TV dinners.

Did you think that maybe, the music you helped EQ just isn't popular anymore?

You want to blame somebody for not having enough money? Blame the greedy ******* that negotiated your contract and cut you out of the loop. Blame the marketing genius that destroyed any credibility your industry had, years ago. Blame the label for not whoring the band out as much as they should've. Blame the band members for not dying (an automatic increase in sales). And if you're a spender, I guess you could blame yourself for not saving...

This is a classic case of people (record companies / 'artists' (see: puppets)) with far too much money, wanting more. Simple as that.

Yes, DRM is sweet. It's really cool. It's so cool that I can break it by burning the songs onto a CD and re-importing them - or by finding a decent app that does it for me.

DRM isn't the answer either.

Also, downloading all of your music (data only - no discs or memory cards - no B&M stores) won't be standard for at least thirty years. CDs have been obsolete (quality-wise) for almost two decades now, but people refuse to let go of them. Also, the idea of owning 'data' rather than 'physical property' complicated laws and other such matters.

To be honest, people just aren't ready to deal with that.

Not to mention, not everybody has an internet connection - or a fast one.

Remember, by downloading songs - if your HD explodes - too bad. Have fun buying those albums again. Not to mention that the quality is ass...

I think I speak for the world when I say, 'No thanks' to that concept. There are still too many people (myself included) that enjoy lossless or near-lossless audio and the ability to actually own the property - as opposed to proprietary, low / medium quality data.

Now, if it worked like 'Steam' (the VALVe game delivery system) in that, you could re-download all of your purchased content, for free...that would be much better, but not perfect.

The problem is - we're paying too much for an age-old format. 45 minutes of music just isn't worth $17 (the average price, with tax). If record companies were willing to lower the cost of CDs to $6 per album - they'd see a huge spike in record sales.

However, they don't really care about that, because either way, they make up for it by charging the poor sap willing to buy it at $17 (almost three times the suggested 'reasonable' cost), as well as all of the money they make on the side.

Really, MP3 trading is the best thing that could happen to music. There are so many bands I would've never found out about - had it not been for this so-called 'menace' of music swaping. And besides, most people are 'loyal' enough to the point where, if they download something and like it - they'll find a way to support the artist (see them in concert, etc.)

It's a great way to get your name out there - it doesn't cost you a damn thing - and your fans come away from it, actually having some respect for you.

And just so you know - I'm a musician myself.

No hard feelings - I just hate the politics of it all. I'm so sick of hearing that little Billy Callahan is putting Metallica into debt by downloading some of their CDs from 1989.

If people were losing money, and going broke, they wouldn't continue creating the content. That's just how it works.

Because if that's true, then I'll believe that every time somebody in 'Merica buys pot - that money is going directly to Al Qaeda.

[~Shard~]

That is so true in my case. When i was using windows almost all of my software was <cough>borrowed</cough>. I figured why buy a program that i rarely use, especally if it dosent work well.

When i switched I found myself having much more success with various programs, and now everything on my Mac's are bought and paid for. That said, there was a leap in maturity on my part. It is amazing what the difference of a few years can do to your view of right and wrong.

I'm the same. I didn't pay for a damn thing on Windows that I didn't regret buying. It's their own fault for having a poor OS and more bugs than a travelling flea circus! :)

I am more inclined to pay for my Mac apps because it feels like there's just been a greater effort and more attention put into them.

Yep, I know what you mean! I have no problems paying for something if it's something I really use, and if the asking price is fair. But I look at the Windows world, then the Mac world, and just shake my head. $300+ for the OS? $700 for Office? $100 for SoundForge for my audio editing? Compare that to Tiger, Office:Mac/iWork, and SoundStudio (free!) and it's a no-brainer!

[faintember]

Ah jeez, you just had to bring up the RIAA propaganda...

Rant on the Music Industry:

First of all: Haha. [/nelson]

Secondly: It's not just because of piracy - although, I'm sure you'd love to make us all feel guilty for ripping or downloading those Beatles albums from our dad's collections. Afterall, Michael Jackson needs royalties.
He does, as do all artists and those entitled to royalties.

The music industry claims they're going 'broke' from the 'P2P / Pirate fiasco' - but then, you have to wonder, how guys like '50 Cent' walk away with multi-million-dollar record contracts, and how record companies can still afford to pay 'big stars' like that.

They charge between $10 - $20 per cd. Millions of idiots are buying this trash. So, I'll lean in your favor and go with the rare $10 price tag. Ok, time for the scenario:

The CD costs around $2 to press, package and ship (in bulk) - and I'm probably charging you too much in this case. The recording artist signs on for 'x' amount of (manufactured) albums per year based on a 'one-time-payment' deal of 'whatever-million-dollars' plus the costs of living / transportation. He sells his name and image to the company so that they can make money off of it - any way they can. The record company hypes them up on MTV for a week with some cheap TRL plugs and releases the 'hot new single from _____'. The single comes out with three tracks. The original and two remixes - sells for $5-$7. So, a few million idiots pay money for this trash (that covers the cost of PR and printing congrats - you've passed the 'breaking even' mark), the album comes out, goes double-platinum, wins 82 Grammys (congrats, sales increase, yet again), is given 'Four Stars' by Jesus Christ himself, the idiots eat it up, and everybody involved in the time-proven scam of pop music walks away with a few extra million in the bank. Oh, and don't forget the profits from the tour and merchandising. Hell, they make more money from selling action figures and t-shirts than they do the albums.

Where did you get your statics and other information from? Just curious.

Your theory of royalties is flawed - because I know for a fact that pop stars like Brittany Spears are most popular amongst the 'P2P terrorist networks'. However, they still sell millions of albums, and everybody involved still walks away rich.
You forget the fact that a large amount of the money a artist gets is from touring/promotions etc.

Did you think that maybe, the music you helped EQ just isn't popular anymore?
Sounds a bit unfair, huh? Even if it is unpopular now, if someone downloads or otherwise obtains it illegally then it is, well, illegal.

This is a classic case of people (record companies / 'artists' (see: puppets)) with far too much money, wanting more. Simple as that.
So, just because someone is rich means that they are not entitled to what they earned??? :confused:

Yes, DRM is sweet. It's really cool. It's so cool that I can break it by burning the songs onto a CD and re-importing them - or by finding a decent app that does it for me.

DRM isn't the answer either.
Admitting to breaking copy-protection on copyrighted materials? Smart. Why not admit you just robbed the 7-11?

Also, downloading all of your music (data only - no discs or memory cards - no B&M stores) won't be standard for at least thirty years. CDs have been obsolete (quality-wise) for almost two decades now, but people refuse to let go of them. Also, the idea of owning 'data' rather than 'physical property' complicated laws and other such matters.
CD's have been obsolete for 20 years now? WHAT?????

I think I speak for the world when I say, 'No thanks' to that concept.
Please, never speak for the world again. Ever.

The problem is - we're paying too much for an age-old format. 45 minutes of music just isn't worth $17 (the average price, with tax). If record companies were willing to lower the cost of CDs to $6 per album - they'd see a huge spike in record sales.
Proof of this???

Really, MP3 trading is the best thing that could happen to music. There are so many bands I would've never found out about - had it not been for this so-called 'menace' of music swapping. And besides, most people are 'loyal' enough to the point where, if they download something and like it - they'll find a way to support the artist (see them in concert, etc.)
So stealing is ok if you later give the person that you stole from some money back, even if it is money that they were entitled to anyways? Great argument.

It's a great way to get your name out there - it doesn't cost you a damn thing - and your fans come away from it, actually having some respect for you.
Yeah, all musicians should give out their music for free. Respect dosent put food on the table or pay the bills.

And just so you know - I'm a musician myself.
Well give me all your music for free then, and i will market it, sell it and keep all of the profits. Sound fair?

If i were a smarter person, i would think you were just trying to incite a reaction. In that case you have one. :)

[dotdotdot]

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

By the way, CD's have not been obsolete for twenty plus years, crachoar, if you listen to a CD from 1985 from an artist like U2 or R.E.M., and then listen to their CD released in 2005 (or in their cases, 2004) there will be a HUGE quality difference.

CD quality keeps getting better and better. But the holding onto thing, thats true. DVD audio has not worked at all even though it is the same price and better quality than regular audio CDs.

[faintember]

CD quality keeps getting better and better. But the holding onto thing, thats true. DVD audio has not worked at all even though it is the same price and better quality than regular audio CDs.
True, but it also requires a player that supports dvd-a/sacd/whatevercameoutlastweek dvd audio format. That and most that i have seen are for 5.1 surround systems. Thats great and all, but not everyone has it, same as with the dvd audio players. Also i cant take a dvd audio disk and lets say, pop it in my car and listen to it. Personally, those are my reasons why i think dvd audio has not caught on. Well that and most consumers are not audiophiles (for example, Ashley Simpson's cd actually sold a copy). :p

[Xtremehkr]

Have you ever admitted to something in a public forum that you thought you had gotten away with?

[iSaint]

It's funny - I feel more inclined to pay for software on my Mac than on my Windows box. :cool:

Me, too. Maybe because I'm getting what I pay for...things that actually work and don't require a new patch every other day.

[~Shard~]

Me, too. Maybe because I'm getting what I pay for...things that actually work and don't require a new patch every other day.

That sums it up pretty much perfectly. :cool:

[njmac]

I downloaded a copy of iWork because I wanted to see how it was and I wanted to make some flyers and I wanted it immediately (took about 1 hour to download). I made some flyers and I like the app.

I bought iWork about 2 days later when I got a chance to get to the Apple Store. Come to think of it, I would have bought it even if I didn't really like the app that much, because I used it and profited from it.

My number 1 reason for getting it from p2p was I wanted it and couldn't get to the store. If Apple had offered it as a download, I would have without question bought it right then and there.

[WinterMute]

I'm not going into details on that rant, Faintember answered many of the points for me (thanks mate).

I will say that it's not the music industry that is suffering here, it's the record companies, they are the ones driving the RIAA agenda, the industry has never been healthier as there are more people able to make music.

Trouble is that no-one new can make a living out of it unless you tour your arse off, the deals being offered to musicians are derisory, and the contracts more draconian than ever.

The industry has already embraced the legal download without DRM (which I never mentioned, crachoar just assumed I was talking about DRM), Apple have shown how easy it could be. The major record companies (now owned by three multinationals) are cutting thier own throats with this DRM nonsense, and if they don't adapt to the real world they will die out, probably being replaced by Apple, how long do you think it's going to be before Apple start offering deals to exclusively distribute artists music?

My final comment is simple, production contracts are legally binding, exactly like an employment contract, I don't think anyone here would be very pleased to find their salary at the end of the month halved by other people stealing their wages. It's the same thing here. Theft is theft however prettily you want to justify it, you download my music, you steal from me and my family as clearly as if you'd broken into my house.

If anyone cares to see exactly how an artists makes "millions" of dollars from their record contracts, check out Steve Albini's comments here:

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

[~Shard~]

Theft is theft however prettily you want to justify it, you download my music, you steal from me and my family as clearly as if you'd broken into my house.

Very well said, and an excellent way to sum things up. It means a lot too coming from a fellow musician. :cool:

[yippy]

I use software without paying every once in a while. Always for the reasons that most people have already said, to demo it. OS X comes with just about everything I need except for Office and some freeware apps that I use, so most everything I have used without paying has been games. Most of the time I play it once, maybe twice, and then delete.

The only time I have ever really gotten any significant use out of a pirated game was one that I bought and then a new pay update came out very shortly afterwards and I got a cracked version of the update. I am actually still debating on whether to buy the new one or go back to the old one, but I will do one of those things soon.

[latergator116]

Admitting to breaking copy-protection on copyrighted materials? Smart. Why not admit you just robbed the 7-11?

You're being sarcastic, right? By the way, he didn't admit to breaking anything.

[Sun Baked]

Yes I have used beerware, shareware, and freeware without sending the programmer a case of beer ...

[wdlove]

I have paid for the software that I own. Do have some freeware. The shareware that I've downloaded has also been paid. Always makes me feel good when the owner sends a message to say thanks.

[FadeToBlack]

I admit to having used pirated software and having pirated music in the past, but I haven't since I got my Mac back in December and don't ever plan to again. I see now that it was wrong and I always try to encourage my friends to actually buy the software/music/etc., but it usually doesn't work. I'd say 95% of the people I know have pirated copies of their OS and hardly anyone I know buys CD's. In fact, I live in a very small town and once piracy became huge with Napster, etc., our record store didn't do enough business to stay open, so now I have to buy my music online or drive like 60 miles. Piracy sucks. :mad:

[mad jew]

Yeah.........

I pay for everything irrespective of whichever companies, Mac or PC. I use it so it's only fair that the developers get a just reward for it.

Moral high road, well and truly taken. :D

Yeah.........

[Josh]

I have used it from time to time.

I don't necessarily agree nor do I encourage it, but I don't know. My honest opinion on the subject is that if NO ONE used pirated software EVER, AT ALL, there would be like 1/4 the number of designers there currently are.

And probably 1/2 of design students would get poor grades because they wouldn't have the software because they do not have the cash to legally own it.

Sure, student discounts are great, but not everyone is fortunate enough to afford things even at the discounted rates. And when kids go to college to try to change that, they're going to do whatever it takes to succeed. (No college student living on his/her own income can afford the entire CS Suite, Quark, Macromedia suite, etc legally.)

I know for a fact not everyone on this site owns photoshop - but how many screenshots do you see it in? Just about every one.

As far as MP3's go - I say download as many as you'd like. I see no problem with that at all. Why? Simple:

Musicians are artists, and artists do what they do because they have a passion to do so. They don't do it to pay rent. Artists share their love with the world for the pure love of it, not to get filthy rich. So if other artists (designers, painters, etc) have to live "starving" why should we pay musicians to live fabulously? If they complain about earning a couple million less, that tells you why they are in the business, and it has nothing to do with passion.

No matter what, no one is going to download every song. People still love to buy a solid CD, to read the lyrics, see who they thank, who produced it, etc etc. That will never go away no matter what. And people will still attend their concerts and musicans will still (unfortantely) get paid richly for that alone.

Getting your music out there and showing the world your songs should be a great oppertunity for any artist. The more people that are exposed to your music, the more they are likely to buy a physical album or attend a concert.

I know a lot of you will probably disagree with me, and that's fine. We all have our opinions, and I'm not likely to change yours any more so than you could mine.